Approved mineral species without finding in the nature?

Sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferro-anthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite. All these amphiboles have A (approved) IMA status according to the IMA/CNMNC list of mineral species (http://pubsites.uws.edu.au/ima-cnmnc/MINERALlist.pdf) and MINDAT (although sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite are missing in MINDAT). I could not find any mineralogical descriptions or at least chemical analyses of these amphiboles in the literature. Can anybody help me?Thanks, Bela

Hi Bela,there are some mineral names that are approved (only name approved). They are amphiboles and they was approved by the previous Amphibole Subcommittee, 1997.If all data in my database are correct also the following "minerals" are only semi-approved (in my database status S for "semi-approved"):

Type descriptions are inexistent, but a part of the "minerals" listed were found in nature (EPMA results). I sent some specimens to Giancarlo Della Ventura and/or Roberta Oberti that are members of the new Amphibole Subcommittee.

Hans Kloster Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> From the Marco list I have Ferroeckermannite,> Ferronyböite, Ferrowinchite and> Potassichastingsite from 4 different dealers and> one expert. Are they all false specimens?

Probably not. Perhaps that they are valid... but it is not so easy correctly characterize and normalize the amphiboles.

Oh, these amphiboles and their names!Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite, sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite, sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are theoretical end members which were given a name in amphibole nomenclature reports.The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in case of their appearance some day; "theoretical" would be a better qualification until that time.

Ernst A.J. Burke Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Oh, these amphiboles and their names!> Ernie, the amphibole with IMA no. 98-061 published> in Am. Mineral. 85 (2000), 578-585 is NOT> sodic-ferropedrizite, BUT sodic-ferripedrizite.> All six sodic amphiboles mentioned by Bela> (sodicanthophyllite, sodic-ferroanthophyllite,> sodic-ferrogedrite, sodicgedrite,> sodic-ferropedrizite and sodicpedrizite) are> theoretical end members which were given a name in> amphibole nomenclature reports.> The qualification "semi-approved" as used by Marco> is a bit misleading, only a name has been given in> case of their appearance some day; "theoretical"> would be a better qualification until that time.

Thank you for the answers. I totally agree with Jolyon that there needs to be a distinction between an approved name (if only the name is approved!) and an approved mineral species. I will check Ernie's data in DHZ.

I agree with David that the status "H" (for "hypothetical") should be applied to mineral names that have been approved but for which no descriptions have been published, and I will do this in my working database. Eventually this will show up in the IMA list and in the version of MINERAL distributed by MDI. In the meantime I will compile a list of such mineral names and send them to Jim Ferraiolo in the expectation that he will make the necessary status changes in Mindat.

Thanks for the correction, Ernst. Sodic-ferropedrizite is another of the approved names without a published description, hereafter with "H" status.

With regard to my previous message, I must point out that the name nybøite and its various derivatives should be written with the alphabetical symbol "ø", not "ö", as reported in the recent paper by Ernst Burke in Min. Rec. 39 (2008), 131-135.

Aluminotschermakite is one of Uwe's "semi-approved" amphiboles. It is also IMA-approved and you might expect it to therefore be a "hypothetical" species. However, amphibole with the composition of aluminotschermakite is reported in Zenk & Schultz 2004 Zoned Ca-amphiboles and related P-T evolution in metabasites from the classic Barrovian metamorphic zones of Scotland. Min. Mag. 68, 769-786.As far as I know this "species" has never been formally described - so what is it? - "semi-approved", "hypothetical", "confirmed species" or something else?With the amphibole group also host to "named species" (Burke & Leake 2005 Amer Mineral. 90, 516-517), perhaps it should have this status?

I'm also aware of published data for aluminokatophorite and ferrowinchite.

In my mind "hypothetical" means "not found in nature" - so how can "species" like "potassichastingsite" (data reported in DH&Z) be given H status?

Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field.
This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right.
If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get
another chance to enter it right.